What Did Jesus Intend?

[Hope]

I think that because some say that he just conveyed the need to get back to the original ethos of the Jewish faith, and this is what some of his Gospel preaching's point to, and others say what you have stated probably explains some of the conflicting messages we can see in the Gospels.

Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!

[Hope]

Some Christians can get very spiteful, and don't understand what Jews mean by being chosen.

They try and victimise Jews because they want to be chosen themselves, and they misunderstand what is meant by the term.

Ironically, the people I've found most confused about the term 'chosen' is the non-religious - at least as far as this board are concerned, Rose.  I have come across a handful of Christioans who would fit your descrition, but compared to the rest I've met who understand the way in which the Jews were chosen - ie not 'because' but 'for' - they are but a handful.  After all, the meaning that Jews have is set out very clearly in the Old Testament and is similar to how Christians think, anyway.  Whilst people now have to make the first move towards God, as opposed to God making the first move towards the Jews, both Jews and Christians are 'chosen' for a purpose, and not on merit.

[Hope]

If Jesus was the 'messiah' he failed to make an impact where most of the Jews were concerned!

Does that in any way invalidate his claim?  Of course not.

[Dicky Underpants]

Whilst people now have to make the first move towards God, as opposed to God making the first move towards the Jews, both Jews and Christians are 'chosen' for a purpose, and not on merit.

One believing Jew I knew, speaking in the context of the horrors of Auschwitz etc., said he thought the Jews were 'chosen to suffer'.

[Dicky Underpants]

There are simply no accounts that reliably tell us Jesus' motivations.

This is certainly true. However, there are certain criteria (which some scholars apply to the texts to attempt to penetrate behind the haze of mythologizing and literary spin) which may point to certain details about him which may be historically true. One notorious criterion (that of 'embarrassment') is particularly relevant. If certain details are reported (and not edited out) of the gospel accounts which do not present the most glowing images of  Jesus, then there is a strong possibility that these may contain historical truth. Likewise, those texts which contain obviously unfulfilled prophecies (whose date has 'expired' - prompting the most tortuous explainings-away from evangelicals) may indicate that Jesus actually said something of the kind. Rhiannon has already referred to the eschatological aspect of Jesus' teaching, which seems to involve such dud prophecies.

 

[Dicky Underpants]

I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" "Go not unto the gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel".
All other texts are add-ons, seen through the filters of St Paul's and St John's views about Jesus. The quoted texts may be something like words uttered by a wandering preacher called Jesus. With these in mind, it is difficult to believe that he ordered his followers to make 'disciples of all nations'

[Dicky Underpants]

Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!

Not quite. In some parts of the gospels, Jesus instructs his disciples to evangelise the whole world. The essential Jewish message is that the whole world may indeed be 'blessed', but that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths. Modern reform Jews seem to think that it doesn't matter a toss whether you 'come to Judaism' or not, so long as you live a good and decent life.

[jeremyp]

I'd disagree with the idea that 'Christianity and mainly Paul' turned it into something else: after all, even Jesus had begun to expand the message and the responsibility for sharing it beyond the Jewish people - think of the Roman centurion he praised for having faith; or the way in which he spoke with the woman of Samaria (no self respecting Jew of the time would have been seen dead speaking to a Samaritan, let alone a Samaritan woman); or his dealings with those people who the Jews had rejected, either on the grounds of race or physical or mental ill-health.

These are all stories that appear in the gospels which were written after Paul's letters. They are probably further from Jesus' original teachings than Paul was.

So much for your vaunted critical thinking skillz.

The problem here is that Jesus is understood to be the Messiah - God in human form - something neither Abraham, Moses or Mohammed are by their respective 'adherents'.

Only by Christians, not by the people who actually understood who the Messiah was meant to be.

[jeremyp]

One notorious criterion (that of 'embarrassment') is particularly relevant. If certain details are reported (and not edited out) of the gospel accounts which do not present the most glowing images of  Jesus, then there is a strong possibility that these may contain historical truth.

The criterion of embarrassment is an embarrassment. How do you define what the gospel authors might have found embarrassing?

Why would there be any pressure to put something in that was embarrassing? After all, it's not as if they didn't leave things out when they felt like it.

[Hope]

These are all stories that appear in the gospels which were written after Paul's letters. They are probably further from Jesus' original teachings than Paul was.

So much for your vaunted critical thinking skillz.

Evidence?  After all, as we've already discovered, Paul never heard any of Jesus' teachings and - so we are told - never discussed it with the apostles.  Anything he did learn about the teachings would therefore have HAD to have come through a  3rd party; the Gospels may have been transcripts of eye-witnesses' accounts.

Only by Christians, not by the people who actually understood who the Messiah was meant to be.

jeremy, perhaps you could tell us who were the first people to regard Jesus as the Messiah?

[Hope]

One believing Jew I knew, speaking in the context of the horrors of Auschwitz etc., said he thought the Jews were 'chosen to suffer'.

OK, so that's one believing Jew - out of how many millions?  There is certainly no indication in the Hebrew Scriptures that that was the reason they were chosen.

[jeremyp]

Evidence?  After all, as we've already discovered, Paul never heard any of Jesus' teachings and - so we are told - never discussed it with the apostles.  Anything he did learn about the teachings would therefore have HAD to have come through a  3rd party;

Paul claimed he received the gospel through revelation. They didn't come through a third party. Not that there is any evidence he knew any of what is in the gospels other than a couple of fragments.

the Gospels may have been transcripts of eye-witnesses' accounts.

But it is obvious they are not.

jeremy, perhaps you could tell us who were the first people to regard Jesus as the Messiah?

Unlike you, I am not prepared to make stuff up without evidence.

[Hope]

Not quite. In some parts of the gospels, Jesus instructs his disciples to evangelise the whole world. The essential Jewish message is that the whole world may indeed be 'blessed', but that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths. Modern reform Jews seem to think that it doesn't matter a toss whether you 'come to Judaism' or not, so long as you live a good and decent life.

Dicky, there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that teaches 'that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths'.  Rather, the passages relating to this topic refer to the Jews going out and acting as witness to the love of God for all humanity (ok, for them that was the people-groups who lived around them).  There is no reference to 'conversion' or 'becoming Jewish'.

[Dicky Underpants]

The criterion of embarrassment is an embarrassment. How do you define what the gospel authors might have found embarrassing?

Why would there be any pressure to put something in that was embarrassing? After all, it's not as if they didn't leave things out when they felt like it.

The argument is that certain sayings of Jesus (such as obviously unfulfilled prophecies) were so ingrained in the minds of Jesus' followers that they felt obliged to record them, even though they must have thought "Well, I'm sure that's what he said - it seems he was wrong, but maybe he meant something different." They certainly did leave things out when they felt like it, but when dealing with matters of eschatology, such things were of such intrinsic importance to the whole scenario, they could hardly avoid recording them.
However, you can see how certain gospel writers dealt with these things in very different ways. Luke relates all the 'end-times' talk of Mark and Matthew, but then goes on to record (or invent) stuff which directly contradicts it. John of course virtually dispenses with all this 'earthly end-times' prophecy altogether.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dicky, there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that teaches 'that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths'.  Rather, the passages relating to this topic refer to the Jews going out and acting as witness to the love of God for all humanity (ok, for them that was the people-groups who lived around them).  There is no reference to 'conversion' or 'becoming Jewish'.

There is certainly a passage in Micah which speaks of the nations of the world coming to the Mountain of the Lord. But I agree, the message here is not on conversion (in fact it seems to say 'all gods are welcome'), but there is a strong implication that the Jews have got something very special which other nations need to learn from.

[Hope]

Paul claimed he received the gospel through revelation. They didn't come through a third party. Not that there is any evidence he knew any of what is in the gospels other than a couple of fragments.

Precisely, he received it by revelation.  He didn't receive the teaching, as the teaching isn't the gospel

But it is obvious they are not.

So obvious, that even now, 2000 years later, there is still evidence that they could be.

Unlike you, I am not prepared to make stuff up without evidence.

You don't need to make up any evidence.  We know that this 'sect', if that is what you want to call it, was originally made up of Jews.  The Roman documentation that we do have, small though it may be, makes that pretty clear.

[jeremyp]

The argument is that certain sayings of Jesus (such as obviously unfulfilled prophecies) were so ingrained in the minds of Jesus' followers that they felt obliged to record them, even though they must have thought "Well, I'm sure that's what he said - it seems he was wrong, but maybe he meant something different."

But they didn't find them embarrassing or they would not have become ingrained. Even if they had become ingrained, that would not prevent the gospel authors from dropping them. Two of the four gospels omit the Lord's Prayer. I doubt if there is anything more ingrained into the Christian psyche and yet we have two gospels not mentioning it even though it is not even embarrassing.

Christians did not find anything in the gospels embarrassing or it wouldn't be there.

[jeremyp]

Precisely, he received it by revelation.  He didn't receive the teaching, as the teaching isn't the gospel

So you admit to making up this third party.

So obvious, that even now, 2000 years later, there is still evidence that they could be.

No there isn't.

You don't need to make up any evidence.  We know that this 'sect', if that is what you want to call it, was originally made up of Jews.  The Roman documentation that we do have, small though it may be, makes that pretty clear.

What Roman documentation?

[Hope]

However, you can see how certain gospel writers dealt with these things in very different ways. Luke relates all the 'end-times' talk of Mark and Matthew, but then goes on to record (or invent) stuff which directly contradicts it. John of course virtually dispenses with all this 'earthly end-times' prophecy altogether.

And there are pretty obvious reasons why the Gospel authors expressed and explained things in different ways.  For instance, the first 3 Gospels (aka the Synoptic Gospels) had very different purposes and probably audiences to that attributed to John.  This wasn't a 'here is the Good News' document; it was a 'this is where people have been going wrong with their thinking' document; even the Synoptic Gospels would appear to have different audiences to each other.  Even today, we find very different reports of the same event - especially when it is political - depending on the political disposition of the report's author, the media in which it appears, perhaps even the timing in relation to other 'political' events.

[Hope]

There is certainly a passage in Micah which speaks of the nations of the world coming to the Mountain of the Lord. But I agree, the message here is not on conversion (in fact it seems to say 'all gods are welcome'), but there is a strong implication that the Jews have got something very special which other nations need to learn from.

An interesting passage on 'Jews as the chosen race', from wkipedia:

... this choice is (often) seen as charging the Jewish people with a specific mission — to be a light unto the nations, and to exemplify the covenant with God as described in the Torah. This view, however, did not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples — rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God. Biblical references as well as rabbinic literature support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16), and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people#In_the_Bible

[Hope]

So you admit to making up this third party.

No; he received the gospel (ie the good news) via revelation.  He would have had to have received information about the actual teachings of Jesus (after all, he does make reference to certain of them) from someone else.  If that 'someone else' wasn't one of the apostles, it would have had to have been a third party.

No there isn't.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Mark's Gospel includes certain details that only Peter would have likely known, suggesting that Mark received that info from him, first hand.  eg events concerning his family, and events relating to incidents that only involved Jeus and Peter.

What Roman documentation?

I had Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius in mind.

[Jack Knave]

Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!

They are not. One is about being a good Jew and the other is about worshiping the messenger and, thereby, creating a new religion in opposition and in conflict with Judaism. Christians are not good Jews!!!

[Hope]

They are not. One is about being a good Jew and the other is about worshiping the messenger and, thereby, creating a new religion in opposition and in conflict with Judaism. Christians are not good Jews!!!

A wonderfully incorrect response, JK.  Nowhere in Jesus' teachings or in any of the New Testament writings is there an instruction to worship Jesus, as a singularity.  Nor, is Judaism about being a good Jew; it's about worshipping God.

[Hope]

In that case all Christians should be by faith be Jewish(?). And if the above is the case then in Jesus' time the cross, the blood of the lamb and the usual Christian message we hear today, and all that, didn't apply so again all Christians should be Jewish, and that Christianity is a false religion built on idolatry.

OK, let's take a more up-to-date analogy.  In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Britain basically had two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories.  In the late 19th Century, parts of the Whig Party changed a certain amount, but retained their fundamental ideas, and became the Liberal Party which sought to fulfill those fundamental ideas in what they deemed to be a better way. 

This is an analogy of Judaism and Christianity in so far as Jesus clearly came to the Jews initially and sought to move them out of what had become a very introverted and insular faith, under which it as thought that Jehovah was purely a deity for the Jews and no-one else - which contradicted what they had been told that they had been chosen to do.  Sadly, the majority of the Jews of the time either rejected his claim to be the promised messiah (predominantly the leaders of the faith) or simply didn't understand enough to make decision. 

Even during his lifetime, Jesus had begun to take the message of the Gospel beyond the 'boundaries' of Judaism, and he effectively reinstituted the original instructions to the Jews (recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures) to take the light to those beyond their physical and tribal boundaries by instructing the disciples (not merely the 11 apostles) to 'go into all the world and make disciples'. 

Instead of following the message they followed the messenger.

No, they followed Christ's reinstituted and, yes, developed instructions, but continued to carry out the original instrctions to worship God.

Why was it a term of abuse?

The early Christians were, like the Jews, monotheistic which was a very unusual thing aroujnd the Mediterranean of the time, and the people of Antioch were alert enough to realise this but that they based their lives on the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of the character they called 'the Christ'.  As with most modern-day societies, people who are different get given nicknames, many of which aren't meant to be complimentary.

[trippymonkey]

HOPE
Welllll
The Jews have really failed BIG time then, eh ?!?!?!!?